The numbers are accurate as far as 30 seconds of research can tell, but they don't tell the story of *why* the numbers fell before vaccination. This is what is called, "telling the truth, but not all of it." In other words, one of the most effective ways to lie.

In fact, public health methods before vaccination aren't easy to find online. I can find reference to typhus, where clean sanitary water stops most of it, but not to smallpox, measles, and other airborne or easily spread by indirect contact diseases. But I can remember older relatives talking about quarantines and other methods that were in use, and toxic, caustic chemicals far worse than anything anyone has even *accused* the chemicals in vaccinations of being. Depending upon how bad an outbreak got, things sometimes got to the stage of de facto martial law, at least in matters having to do with public health.

The spikes in the chart - which are so large as to render the Ordinary Least Squares line best fitting them as meaningless - are caused by the nature of how fast the disease would spread before public health became cognizant of the issue. In fact, given increased localization in the charting instead of nationwide, the spikes would be far worse, and given the way the modern population moves around from coast to coast and internationally on jet airplanes, the spikes would be both far larger and far more common, as localized outbreaks would spread far more quickly.

So would you really rather be treated by massive infringement upon your civil liberties, large doses of toxic and caustic chemicals in your environment, and even more extreme methods in a few cases - or would you rather just go get your vaccination?